State v. Schaefer, 95-2878-CR

• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
• Citation: 201 Wis.2d 817,549 N.W.2d 287
• Docket Number: No. 95-2878-CR,95-2878-CR
• Parties: NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Scott K. SCHAEFER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 03 April 1996

Page 287

549 N.W.2d 287 201 Wis.2d 817 NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Scott K. SCHAEFER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-2878-CR. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. April 3, 1996.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Waukesha County: J. MAC DAVIS, Judge.

ANDERSON, Presiding Judge.

Scott K. Schaefer appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine, contrary to § 161.41(3m), Stats. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Schaefer's motion to suppress the evidence seized from him. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

According to the criminal complaint, Police Officer Paul John Paikowski was dispatched to investigate the report of a suspicious person operating a brownish-colored Ford with the license plate KUD-747. The operator of the described car had allegedly threatened someone with a gun while in a municipal lot. The operator of the car was said to have indicated that he possessed a gun while motioning to the glove box inside of his car. Paikowski located Schaefer and told him that he would be conducting a "pat-down" search. Schaefer raised his arms out to his sides and told Paikowski that he had permission to search him and the vehicle.

During the pat-down search, Paikowski felt a firm object in Schaefer's right front pocket of his jeans which he believed was consistent with a bindle used to conceal drugs. When Paikowski felt the object he asked Schaefer what was inside his pocket and Schaefer replied that it was an envelope containing pipe screens which he used to smoke marijuana on occasion. Paikowski proceeded to put his hand into Schaefer's pocket and felt two separate pliable-like bindles and asked Schaefer what else was in his pocket. Schaefer said that it was personal. When Paikowski asked what he meant by "personal," Schaefer said that he had a small amount of cocaine for personal use. Paikowski then removed the objects from Schaefer's pocket where he found pipe screens and cocaine.

Schaefer filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence seized from him, claiming that the search and seizure were unlawful and violated his constitutional rights. The trial court denied his motion. Schaefer subsequently pled no contest to the criminal charges. A judgment of conviction was entered against him for possession of cocaine. Schaefer appeals.

Schaefer argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress physical evidence seized from him. When we review a trial court's decision regarding a motion to suppress evidence, the court's findings of fact will be sustained unless they are contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. State v. Callaway, 106 Wis.2d 503, 511, 317 N.W.2d 428, 433, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 967, 103 S.Ct. 294, 74 L.Ed.2d 277 (1982). However, we independently examine the circumstances of the case to determine whether the constitutional...